Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Motorola's MPC7457 Soon?

1.8 in even 4 months isn't enough. I think that unless a major, unannounced fundamental upgrade to the Moto chips (which I highly doubt) the only future at this point for Apple is with IBM.

And why is it now, over the past year or so that we've seen more speed bumps in the Moto chips than we saw in the first couple years of the G4? It ridiculous, remember how long it took them to break the GHz barrier?

Bring on the 970

D
 
I see all this chat i think you have to remember how macs are marketed,pro line and consumer line. Remember the pros use to be the g4 and the consumers the g3. I think in the next year plus you will see apple go with the new 7457 g4 as the consumer line and the new 970 as the pro line. Now the question is how will these be phased in?Only apple and those chip makers know for sure. but i think you wont see the 7457 in the pro line but only in the consumer line after the 970 gets introduced in the powermacs.This is pure speculation but if 970's are being mass produced this 2 qtr or half how long will it take for these to make it into the new powermacs? Remember to that all this duallies stuff was being used to make up for what motorolas was not giving apple. I just dont see them putting in the 7457 and then turn around and use the 970 in the powermac line but who knows?
 
Good point on the consumer and pro lines. I'd have to say that I was talking specifically about the proline.

The other thing aswell will be the PowerBook - that won't have a IBM970 at first either, the 970s will end up in the PowerMacs first and then a couple months later you'll see it in the PowerBooks. At the same time or a little there after the iMacs and iBooks would probably get the G4s.

Idle speculation based on common sense with nothing but rumors to go on, but it makes sense to me and I hope it happens soon enough.

D
 
Fantasy, but I feel this could really happen...

July 2003 - IBM will quietly issue a press release saying that PPC 970 chip fabrication is being ramped up to full capacity.

About a week after that, perhaps at MW [maybe?], updated PowerBooks will be announced, with the MPC7457, running up to 1.25-1.33 ghz, with 133 mhz busses.

About a week later, Apple will speed bump the iMac. These will include the MPC7457 at a vartiety of speeds, with 133 and possibly 167 mhz busses.

No material changes to any of the designs of these machines, but some feature bumps [ie FW 800, Airport X accross the lines] will be there.

The iBook will join the G4 family in this later half of the year, but with the older MPC7455 chips running up to say 1.1 ghz. The eMac line will share the same MPC 7455 at up to maybe 1.1 ghz. These both will retain the 133 mhz bus and same form factor/feature set, except for APX.

About a week after that, end of July/early August, after the rumor sites and forums have had multiple anurisms talking about the 7457 and what is means, Apple will announce at a press event, streamed to the web and its own stores, updated wind-tunnel PowerMac G4s, with the 7457, running from 1.42-1.6 ghz. Then when everyone is let down and about to moon the stage..."one more thing." The PowerMac G5/xMac/SuperMac G5/whatever name if it changes is announced with the PPC 970, running at 1.6-2.0 ghz, with a new case design, full DDR, yada, yada, yada.

Everyone is happy and enjoys the rest of the love in.

We will not see PowerBook 970s until at least early 2004, maybe later, after it has gone to the 9nm process.

:)
 
This is good news! I think we will see one more G4 PowerMac before the 970 and it will use this chip...also this will help boost the consumer line.
 
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
This is good news! I think we will see one more G4 PowerMac before the 970 and it will use this chip...also this will help boost the consumer line.
Click to expand...

All of that about Apple integrating it was speculation, not fact. There are too many variables here we don't really know anything about. There no reason to say we couldn't see a couple G4 updates before the 970.

I just wish it would happen sooner than later and never see a MPC7457 in a PowerMac.

D
 
Imagine...

Originally posted by Abstract
So what's going to happen? A 7457 into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, and a G4 into the iBooks until the 970 comes out? And then 7 months down the line, the 970's go into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, while the little iBook then picks up the MPC 7457? Why don't they just NOT use the 7457 at all and move entirely to IBM? If they move to the 7457, it would only be for 1 generation. It doesn't make sense for Apple to push this "next generation" chip when they're only going to use it for several more months. I would rather see the rumoured 2nd generation zippy G3's in the consumer line at 1.5+ Ghz, and the 970 in the PB/PM than anything that Motorola comes out with. It doesn't make sense for Apple to stick with the company that got them into this position to begin with. What is this, Battered-wife syndrome or something? Can't we just leave Motorola once and for all when we have the chance!!!
Click to expand...

Imagine this, Apple goes with the 7457. IBM comes out with the 970 with much fanfare. We all wait in anticipation for Apple to announce use of the 970 but instead announces a speed bumped 7457 or newer processor from Motorola. When asked they admit that Motorola is their supplier for processors for the forseeable future.

If Apple goes with the 7457 with all the redesign and retooling that would entail, why would they change processor lines for the 970 one or two updates later? I hope they pass on the 7457 and gear up for the 970, but that is just my preference.
 
Originally posted by Gyroscope
Can't really see the reason why some people here get so upbeat about this 7547's. It's still bloody 3.5 yrs old CPU design (designed for networking equip.) that really wouldn't do any justice to any Apple computer line. Who really cares about additional 256 KB L2 cache and few Mhz increase. What we really need is next generation CPU that kick ass and also justifies price tag Apple is charging for their desktops.:mad:
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're being a LITTLE negative... the G4 isn't a terrible CPU, it's just been neglected. We all see promise in the 970 but I don't think they're charging too much for their desktops. Their prices are very much on par with the industry, given their specs.
 
Originally posted by dukestreet
Good point on the consumer and pro lines. I'd have to say that I was talking specifically about the proline.

The other thing aswell will be the PowerBook - that won't have a IBM970 at first either, the 970s will end up in the PowerMacs first and then a couple months later you'll see it in the PowerBooks. At the same time or a little there after the iMacs and iBooks would probably get the G4s.

Idle speculation based on common sense with nothing but rumors to go on, but it makes sense to me and I hope it happens soon enough.

D
Click to expand...

I dont know much about this, apart from what i read here and there. but im sure u guys were slating the G4 a couple of weeks ago saying that even a revamped version of the G3 would be better and alot cheaper, lets hope Apple goes for the revamped G3 and the G4 doesnt reach the comsumer line at all, am i right?
 
7457

First, the pdf from Motorola is relatively old. The document is about the 8245. the 8245 has been out for quite awhile (> 1year).
Someone recently said that the 7457 was in the new PMacs. Looking at the pdf, the 7457 appears to be simply a die shrink and switch to SOI. No "new" technology. I have a dual 867 PMac (loud fan) and I can use the hot air coming out of it to warm my hands. I think I've heard that the new PMac are quieter and less heat. This would imply that 7457 are in the new PMacs (7457s not 7457-RM).
The question is ... why not say they are ?:confused:
or perhaps they are something a little different, like just a die shrink to 0.13 and not SOI. So then it would just be a 7455+. Intel does this, the PIII was still a PIII all through it's die shrinks.
 
Well guys, these new chips will not be pathetic, and will make for great iMac / eMac processors over the next year or so. It's great to have news like this, because it means that progress is being made.

Oh, and here's a quick comparison of the 7457 and the 970 from my not-so-certain memory and a pile of rumors:

Moto 7457
- up to 1.83GHz
- 167 & 200MHz System Bus
- 512K L2 Cache
- 4MB L3 Cache

IBM 970
- starting at 1.8GHz
- 900MHz System Bus
- 512K L2 Cache

Now, if we took a 1.8GHz 7457 and a 1.8GHz IBM 970, how much would the 970 win by? Granted, the new 970 is 64-bit and will allow insane amounts of memory (thank God), but how much would it win by with an equal amount of RAM? I'm just curious, because I'm betting the 7457 will be cheaper.
 
Macs are not expensive!

I don't think Macs are more expensive than PCs. I think they are cheaper. On a personal level they appear more expensive, but on a corporate level they appear more economical. I work at a company that is mostly Macs (except for me, I have all the PCs). I have read and heard stories that Macs need little maintenance ( like an IT department). It is documented that only 20% of the cost of a computer is what you paid at the store for it. Since the market is essentially Wintel, that means a $2000 pc actually costs $10,000 including support (on average). A Mac cost more but with less support requirement, it can if fact be cheaper overall.
 
Their prices are very much on par with the industry, given their specs.
Click to expand...

I have in front of me a copy of the UK design magazine Digit (march 03) which has a test of workstations for around the £2000 mark.

Apple supplied a dual 1ghz PowerMac (£1700), other manufacturers included Dell, IBM, Fujitsu-Siemens and a couple of smaller UK based companies.

Apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM
ATI 9000 graphics
DVD-R
80gb HD

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM
nVidia Quadro4 900 XGL graphics
DVD+R
Two 36gb 15,000 rpm Ultra SCSI HD

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM
Matrox G450 graphics
CD-RW
36gb SCSI

The test involved a Photoshop action test on 75mb file and a Lightwave render with a Newtek supplied demo file.

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.
 
Testing was biased!

Originally posted by MikeH
Apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.
 
Originally posted by Gyroscope
Can't really see the reason why some people here get so upbeat about this 7547's. It's still bloody 3.5 yrs old CPU design (designed for networking equip.) that really wouldn't do any justice to any Apple computer line. Who really cares about additional 256 KB L2 cache and few Mhz increase. What we really need is next generation CPU that kick ass and also justifies price tag Apple is charging for their desktops.:mad:
Click to expand...

Actually, Intel's Pentium 3 (which they are still making and using frequently, I might add) is just a tripple overhault of the oldskool Pentium Pro. The PPro came out in 1995/1996:

ftp://download.intel.com/design/pro/manuals/24269001.pdf

That's 9 years on the backs of the P6 core. I think that people are just miffed because Intel has a next gen proc out right now that is doing well. If you think about it like this... at least Apple didn't dwell on the G3 as Intel did on the P6... the G3 was around for only a couple of years before we got the G4. The G4 came in 1999:

http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/hubs/central/processor_type/G4news.html

We're sitting on a 4 year old processor... that's it... I think the g4 has still got lots of live and revs left in it.

Wouldn't almost be a no-brainer that Apple will keep the iBook and iMac at the G4 level and move the pro machines on to "g5s" (970 or otherwise) ASAP?

Also... people shouldn't get their hopes up for the 7457 and the 970 immediately solving their speed woes... Look to Intel again for examples of why this is a bad idea... :

The Pentium Pro wasn't really a consumer product, so we'll not talk about it, but the Pentium II (the second rev of the PPro) was.

So the P2 scaled from 200MHz to 450MHz and that's where it topped out.

Enter the P3. The P3 scaled from 450MHz up to 1GHz (in its original form). At this time, I remember the reviews trashing the P3 because a P3-450 performed NO BETTER than a P2-450.

Enter the P3b (a die shrink). This P3 scales up to 1.4GHz and is currently pitched in low end servers and notebooks almost exclusively.

Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Now they're at 3.06GHz and clicking along nicely. And MacFans are pining away for a messiah processor.

I wouldn't expect that a 7457 is it. Nor the 970. We'll need to wait for die-shrinks and revs on *both* of these for them to rev up mac performance.

Being a bi-platform person (macs are for work, pcs are for games ;) ) myself, I sincerely believe that Apple will ultimately come to speed parity and may eventually surpass the competition in processing power. But I don't think 2003 is the year.

Dharvabinky
 
$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, the suppliers were asked to supply a workstation class computer which would retail for £2000. Credit would be given if they had supplied a particularly good value machine for less than that.

So Apple could have added the extra memory themselves and not been penalised. However I don't think it would have doubled the render speed or knocked 60 seconds off the Photoshop test even if they had of done. Incedently the Dell and the IBM were not fastest of the PC's, the Amari scored 66s for P'shop and 25m47s for LW, but as they are a much smaller company they don't really compete directly with Apple's overheads, but it does show what's available for £2000.

Don't get me wrong, I like the PowerMacs but in the last year or so they are falling behind in performance terms with PC's, when they should really be up there straight out the box.

OS X and Apple software is good value leads the way. For the money, so should it's pro level hardware.
 
Fine, the 7457 may be coming out soon, but that doesn't mean it's for the towers. The pBook and iMac still need good fast chips like the G4s until the 970 can be fitted to thier specs.
 
I'd go for something like this:
  • Dragon Full-Tower Case (431-Watt PS) (Space Black)
    Enermax EG465P-VE 431 Watt Power Supply
    Dual AMD Athlon MP Processor 1800+
    Tyan S2466N - AMD 760MPX Dual-Processor Motherboard DDR
    1GB DDR SDRAM PC-2100 w/ECC
    80GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200RPM 2MB Cache
    80GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200RPM 2MB Cache
    16/48x DVD-ROM - IDE - Black w/Software MPEG-2 Decoder
    Lite-On 48x24x48x CD-RW - IDE - Black
    NVIDIA® Quadro?4 900 XGL w/128MB 4X AGP Dual Monitor
    Sound Blaster® Audigy 1394 - 5.1
    Microsoft Internet Keyboard (Space Black)
    Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0 - USB (Standard Color)
    Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
    Free Alienware® T-Shirt - Black
    Bonus 12-Month Subscription to Computer Games Magazine!
    Alien Autopsy: Automated Technical Support Request System
    Aliencare Toll-Free 1-Year 24/7 ONSITE Warranty
    Personalized Owner's Manual
    Optimized & Configured for High-Performance
    FREE Custom Alienware® Mouse Pad

    Price: $2679.00
From AlienWare

The only thing I'd want different is OS X and pro keyboard/mouse, ATI 9700 Pro, and T-Shirt. Apple should max out there pro DV systems like this. It would make it much more appealing.
 
The only thing I'd want different is OS X and pro keyboard/mouse, ATI 9700 Pro, and T-Shirt. Apple should max out there pro DV systems like this. It would make it much more appealing.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more.
 
Originally posted by MikeH


In all fairness, the suppliers were asked to supply a workstation class computer which would retail for £2000. Credit would be given if they had supplied a particularly good value machine for less than that.

So Apple could have added the extra memory themselves and not been penalised. However I don't think it would have doubled the render speed or knocked 60 seconds off the Photoshop test even if they had of done. Incedently the Dell and the IBM were not fastest of the PC's, the Amari scored 66s for P'shop and 25m47s for LW, but as they are a much smaller company they don't really compete directly with Apple's overheads, but it does show what's available for £2000.

Don't get me wrong, I like the PowerMacs but in the last year or so they are falling behind in performance terms with PC's, when they should really be up there straight out the box.

OS X and Apple software is good value leads the way. For the money, so should it's pro level hardware.
Click to expand...

I see your points onthe money and why they did it that way, and nice comments about the OS and such.

I have to say though, that on my 667 G4, when I went from 512mb ram to 1.5 gb ram, my Photoshop times improved by over 50%, no kidding, outside of overall times for open and save. Gaussian blur times were the most increased. LW, I don't know for sure, not my area, but the RAM requirements on 3D I know are high.

BTW, was the PM running OSX.1.x or X.2.x?? That will have a difference too, as sooooooo much of the screen overhead is dumped to the graphics card with Quartz Extreme in X.2.x. That will have an impact as well on the CPU time available, even while the UI is somewhat idle, ie no user input. Just a thought.

I also agree that the PM speed is an issue, BUT, the overall enchilada of the OS and hardware speak to total effienciency as well. On OSX, I spend roughly 10% of the time I spent on OS9 [or 2% of the time my unfortunate colleagues on XP do] doing upkeep and troubleshooting, so my overall time spent on work is greatly improved.

And this may sound like an excuse, but I am a professional freelance graphic designer, I get paid by the hour, roughly $50-75/hr depending on the job. So if a Photoshop session takes me 2 hours on my G4, instead of 1 hour on a PC, I am making more money. For that, I don't want to get too much faster! HA!
 
Originally posted by primalman
And this may sound like an excuse, but I am a professional freelance graphic designer, I get paid by the hour, roughly $50-75/hr depending on the job. So if a Photoshop session takes me 2 hours on my G4, instead of 1 hour on a PC, I am making more money. For that, I don't want to get too much faster! HA!
Click to expand...
Good excuse. Thank god no one will force you to upgrade. :D
 
Originally posted by DharvaBinky


Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Dharvabinky
Click to expand...



...My friend has a P4 1.4ghz so...the P4's started lower than 1.6ghz
 
Originally posted by DharvaBinky
Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Now they're at 3.06GHz and clicking along nicely. And MacFans are pining away for a messiah processor.

I wouldn't expect that a 7457 is it. Nor the 970. We'll need to wait for die-shrinks and revs on *both* of these for them to rev up mac performance.

Being a bi-platform person (macs are for work, pcs are for games ;) ) myself, I sincerely believe that Apple will ultimately come to speed parity and may eventually surpass the competition in processing power. But I don't think 2003 is the year.
Click to expand...

I think you are right that neither the 7457 nor the 970 as currently described will bring speed parity.

I do not believe that Apple can surpass the top end Windows platforms for raw horsepower in a desktop ever again. The reason is that the desktop market share for the PowerPC platform is simply too small to allow the kind of R&D that Intel and AMD pour into CPU design and process improvements.

Motorola's focus will not be on desktops because I believe they rightly understand they cannot compete. They will focus on where they can compete which is in the embedded and telecom markets. On process alone Motorola seems stuck at one to two years behind Intel and AMD.

IBM's focus will not be on desktops because I believe they rightly understand they cannot make enough money to justify the costs. They will continue to improve their PowerPC lines for workstations not to compete with the WinTel world, but with HP and Sun. Although most of the hype for the 970 has been around Apple's use, the 970 will be a great processor for next generation networking devices. A 64-bit processor will be very desirable in IPv6 network devices even though it does not offer a lot of advantages in an IPv4 network device.

I think instead of focusing on trying to have the hottest CPU in the desktop world, Apple should instead focus on having the highest value desktops for creative professionals and consumers who are not tied to the WinTel world. I think Apple is still very close to having this even though the current G4s are wholly outclassed by the top of the line Pentium 4s. Given the 7547s or 970s and similar pricing to what they have now, the systems would represent a great value.

If Apple tries to compete head to head on a raw horsepower basis they will loose because Intel has the resources to simply outspend Motorola and IBM on chip R&D.
 
I think he's right

apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.
$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.
Click to expand...

If you look at the benchmarks, the IBM P4 speed was almost the same as the dell, but it was still 50 sec almost 50% slower than than the dell, note that the dell had 1GB Ram and the IBM had half (512) hmm.

And I don't beleive the excuse of "they wanted to pick workstations that were matched on similar price"...thats why the DELL was £375 more than the Powermac??? Give me a break. If the IBM was £100 more expensive with 1GB, and the PM was bumped to 1GB also, you would see MUCH more even scores. I mean, haven't they ever heard of custom ordering? That way they could bring the price of the systems as EQUAL as possible, then check thier performance.

The DELL looks faster because it is MORE expensive....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back